do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.10672 – VISTA / ELLIOTT / CITRIX SYSTEMS / TIBCO) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 277/01
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, software








C_2022277EN.01000101.xml










19.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 277/1






Non-opposition to a notified concentration
(Case M.10672 – VISTA / ELLIOTT / CITRIX SYSTEMS / TIBCO)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 277/01)
On 13 July 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:






—


in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,










—


in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10672. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.






(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10651 – FAERCH / PACCOR) (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 269/08
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, food industry, merger control, packaging, plastic waste, plastics industry, waste recycling








C_2022269EN.01003001.xml










13.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/30






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10651 – FAERCH / PACCOR)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 269/08)

1.   
On 6 July 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Faerch A/S (‘Faerch’, Denmark), a subsidiary of A.P. Møller Holding A/S (‘APMH’, Denmark),










—


PACCOR Holdings GmbH (‘Paccor’, Germany), indirectly controlled by Goldberg Lindsay & Co. LLC (‘Lindsay Goldberg’, USA).




Faerch will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of Paccor.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.


2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Faerch is a manufacturer and distributor of rigid plastic packaging, principally for the food industry, as well as an integrated PET recycler and producer,










—


Paccor is a manufacturer and distributor of rigid plastic packaging, principally for the food industry but also for select non-food applications.






3.   

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.



4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10651 – FAERCH / PACCOR
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).
Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10777 – PLASTIC OMNIUM / VARROC (LIGHTING DIVISION)) Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance) 2022/C 269/10
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Competition, European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, light-duty vehicle, merger control, vehicle parts








C_2022269EN.01003301.xml










13.7.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/33






Prior notification of a concentration
(Case M.10777 – PLASTIC OMNIUM / VARROC (LIGHTING DIVISION))
Candidate case for simplified procedure
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2022/C 269/10)

1.   
On 6 July 2022, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).
This notification concerns the following undertakings:






—


Compagnie Plastic Omnium SE (‘Plastic Omnium’, France), controlled by Burelle SA (France),










—


The lighting system division of Varroc Lighting Systems GmbH (‘Varroc Lighting Systems’, Germany).
Plastic Omnium will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Varroc Lighting Systems.
The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of securities.






2.   
The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:






—


Plastic Omnium develops, manufactures and supplies automotive components and modules (bumpers, hatchbacks/tailgates and spoilers, fuel storage and delivery systems, fuel cell stacks, hydrogen vessels and integrated hydrogen systems), mainly for light vehicles,










—


Varroc Lighting Systems develops, manufactures and supplies automotive exterior lighting systems for light vehicles.






3.   
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.
Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.


4.   
The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:
M.10777 – PLASTIC OMNIUM / VARROC (LIGHTING DIVISION)
Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:
Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu
Fax +32 22964301
Postal address:





European Commission




Directorate-General for Competition




Merger Registry




1049 Bruxelles/Brussel




BELGIQUE/BELGIË







(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.
Case T-864/19: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — AI and Others v ECDC (Civil service — ECDC staff members — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Prior warnings — Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Scope of the duty to provide assistance — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Opening of an investigation — Reasonable time period — Liability — Unlawfulness)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: European official, harassment at work, indemnification, psychological harassment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022359EN.01006101.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/61






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — AI and Others v ECDC
(Case T-864/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECDC staff members - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Prior warnings - Article 31 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Scope of the duty to provide assistance - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Opening of an investigation - Reasonable time period - Liability - Unlawfulness)
(2022/C 359/72)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicants: AI, HV, HW, HY (represented by: L. Levi and A. Champetier, lawyers)

Defendant: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (represented by: J. Mannheim, acting as Agent, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Re:

By their action brought under Article 270 TFEU, lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 17 December 2019, the applicants, AI, HV, HW and HY, seek compensation for the harm which they claim to have suffered as a result, essentially, of the lack of an appropriate response from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) in relation to the conduct of A (Head of Unit) towards them between 2012 and 2018, constituting, in their view, psychological harassment.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders each party to bear its own costs.






(1)  OJ C 61, 24.2.2020.
Case T-40/22: Order of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Dado Ceramica and Others v EUIPO — Italcer (Tiles)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: designs and models, floor coverings, technical ceramics








C_2022340EN.01005703.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/57






Order of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Dado Ceramica and Others v EUIPO — Italcer (Tiles)
(Case T-40/22) (1)

(2022/C 340/79)
Language of the case: Italian
The President of the Ninth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.


(1)  OJ C 128, 21.3.2022.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific and temporary measures, in view of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, concerning driver documents issued by Ukraine in accordance with its legislation (COM(2022) 313 final — 2022/0204 (COD))
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, aid to refugees, drivers, driving licence, foreign national, international road transport, recognition of vocational training qualifications, road safety, war








C_2022443EN.01014401.xml










22.11.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 443/144






Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down specific and temporary measures, in view of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, concerning driver documents issued by Ukraine in accordance with its legislation
(COM(2022) 313 final — 2022/0204 (COD))
(2022/C 443/21)






Referral


Council, 28.6.2022
European Parliament, 4.7.2022




Legal basis


Article 91 and 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union




Section responsible


Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society




Adopted at plenary


13.7.2022




Plenary session No


571




Outcome of vote
(for/against/abstentions)


195/4/3




Since the Committee endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 13 July 2022.


The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Christa SCHWENG
Case T-634/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT) (EU trade mark — International registration designating the European Union — Word mark WE DO SUPPORT — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, consultancy, database, maintenance, registered trade mark, software, trade-mark law








C_2022359EN.01007001.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/70






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Rimini Street v EUIPO (WE DO SUPPORT)
(Case T-634/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - International registration designating the European Union - Word mark WE DO SUPPORT - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 359/85)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Rimini Street, Inc. (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States) (represented by: E. Ratjen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: R. Raponi and D. Hanf, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 3 August 2021 (Case R 710/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Rimini Street, Inc., to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.
Case T-251/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tigercat International v EUIPO — Caterpillar (Tigercat) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Tigercat — Earlier EU figurative mark CAT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, agricultural machinery, forestry economics, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022340EN.01003401.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/34






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tigercat International v EUIPO — Caterpillar (Tigercat)
(Case T-251/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Tigercat - Earlier EU figurative mark CAT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))
(2022/C 340/46)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Tigercat International Inc. (Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: B. Führmeyer and E. Matthes, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Georgieva, D. Gája and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Caterpillar Inc. (Peoria, Illinois, United States) (represented by: A. Renck and S. Petivlasova, lawyers)

Re:

By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks the annulment and modification of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 25 February 2021 (Case R 16/2020-2), relating to opposition proceedings between the intervener and the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Tigercat International Inc. to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 263, 5.7.2021.
Case T-543/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU figurative mark Rejeunesse — Earlier EU word mark REVANESSE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, aesthetic surgery, pharmaceutical product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022359EN.01006802.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/68






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Purasac v EUIPO — Prollenium Medical Technologies (Rejeunesse)
(Case T-543/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark Rejeunesse - Earlier EU word mark REVANESSE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)
(2022/C 359/83)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Purasac Co. Ltd (Anyang-si, South Korea) (represented by: P. Lee, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (Aurora, Ontario, Canada) (represented by: R. Lyxell, lawyer)

Re:

By its action brought under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 2 July 2021 (Case R 146/2021-4).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Purasac Co. Ltd to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 422, 18.10.2021.
Case T-369/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (uni) (EU trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — EU figurative mark uni — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) — Signs or indications which have become customary — Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001))
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, office supplies, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2022359EN.01006701.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/67






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Unimax Stationery v EUIPO — Mitsubishi Pencil (uni)
(Case T-369/21) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark uni - Absolute grounds for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Signs or indications which have become customary - Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(d) of Regulation 2017/1001))
(2022/C 359/81)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Unimax Stationery (Daman, India) (represented by: E Amoah, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Mitsubishi Pencil Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 22 April 2021 (Case R 1909/2020-5).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders Unimax Stationery to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 338, 23.8.2021.
Case T-150/20: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tartu Agro v Commission (State aid — Agriculture — Lease contract for agricultural land in Estonia — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery — Advantage — Determination of the market price — Private operator principle — Complex economic assessments — Judicial review — Taking into account of all relevant factors — Duty of care)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: Southern Estonia, State aid, agricultural land, control of State aid, farm lease, farm rent, judicial review, market prices, property leasing, reimbursement of aid








C_2022340EN.01002901.xml










5.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 340/29






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — Tartu Agro v Commission
(Case T-150/20) (1)

(State aid - Agriculture - Lease contract for agricultural land in Estonia - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery - Advantage - Determination of the market price - Private operator principle - Complex economic assessments - Judicial review - Taking into account of all relevant factors - Duty of care)
(2022/C 340/37)
Language of the case: Estonian

Parties


Applicant: Tartu Agro AS (Tartu, Estonia) (represented by: T. Järviste, T. Kaurov, M. Valberg and M. Peetsalu, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2020) 252 final of 24 January 2020 on State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) — Alleged illegal aid to AS Tartu Agro.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Annuls Commission Decision C(2020) 252 final of 24 January 2020 on State aid SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) — Alleged illegal aid to AS Tartu Agro;










2.


Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tartu Agro, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.






(1)  OJ C 175, 25.5.2020.
Case T-677/21: Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — TL v Commission (Civil service — Members of the temporary staff — Appraisal report for 2019 — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Setting of objectives — Misuse of powers — Liability)
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: abuse of power, servant (EU), staff assessment, staff regulations (EU)








C_2022359EN.01007101.xml










19.9.2022   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 359/71






Judgment of the General Court of 13 July 2022 — TL v Commission
(Case T-677/21) (1)

(Civil service - Members of the temporary staff - Appraisal report for 2019 - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Setting of objectives - Misuse of powers - Liability)
(2022/C 359/87)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: TL (represented by: L. Levi and N. Flandin, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Brauhoff and L. Hohenecker, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action based on Article 270 TFEU, the applicant seeks, first, annulment of her appraisal report for 2019 or, in the alternative, its partial annulment and, so far as necessary, of the decision of the European Commission’s authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment of 8 July 2021 dismissing her complaint under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union against that report, and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage which she claims to have suffered due to the unlawfulness of that report.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Dismisses the action;










2.


Orders TL to pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 502, 13.12.2021.